Case Study: US V. US

2. The plaintiff the United States of America (U.S.) is suing the defendant Burlington Northern Railway / Shell Oil Co. over its participation in creating a significant contamination of soil and groundwater at the Brown & Bryant, Inc. (B & B) agricultural chemical distribution business. The plaintiff is requesting that the defendant is responsible for a portion of the cleanup cost because the defendant was a Potential Responsible Party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). B & B was an agricultural chemical distribution business until 1998 when the company went bankrupt. During this time, B & B expanded its operation to an adjacent 0.9 acre of land that was jointly owned by Atchison,
The EPA discovered the contamination of the soil and groundwater in 1998. This site was identified as a superfund site and cost the plaintiff 8 million dollars to cleanup this site. In 1991 the EPA requested that the defendant cleanup the 0.9 acre of land, which cost them 3 million dollars. The court found the defendant liable as a PRP to B & B under the CERCLA and has additional responsibilities for the cleanup of the B & B work site. The percentages identified were 6% for the defendant Shell Oil and 9% for the defendant Burlington Northern Railway for their responsibility for the cleanup of the B & B work Site. Shell and the U.S. appealed. The Ninth Circuit held that Shell had arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance and held Shell and the Railroads jointly and severally liable for the Governments’ costs. The Railroads and Shell
In 1999 the supreme court ruled on a case in the same matter as Judge Stevens. There is sum responsibility the company has to protect the environment and those that rely on the resources from this environment. A company that produces an item should in good faith ensure that its customers understand the proper use and disposal of the product. If the company does not know that its customer is not properly using or disposing its product the producing company should not be held liable for the disregards of another company. If this other company that is not properly using or disposing of an item that leads to contamination and is part of the producing company then the producing company should be held liable for any cleanup